The discussion of wedges is interesting, and may be useful as an intellectual exercise but in the real world it seems clear we need to use as many different wedges, as different as they can be from each other, as we can find. (to avoid overtaxing some resources and underutilizing others—tree-planting and windmill building, for example, don’t share many bottlenecks, while nuclear and concentrated solar might.) Two half wedges equals one wedge, after all, and 4 quarter wedges in the hand in 2015 are worth more than a wedge in the bush in 2040. It seems obvious to me also that a technology in the hand is worth a thousand in the eternal future, and we need to use what we have to do what we can, now. To rule out any help is counterproductive, but to count on something that may or may not happen, and is not likely to happen in time, is folly. So what’s the argument? Invest and hope for breakthroughs, celebrate and be thankful when they happen, and work our asses off with what we have in the meantime. Praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition.

In college I had a statistics instructor who walked in the first day, wrote his name on the board and said “The two parts of statistics are data collection and analysis. The most important and difficult of these two is collection. Therefore we will deal mostly with analysis in this class.” I started looking for the door.

Let us not argue about the number of wedges on the head of a pin, or deal mostly with analysis in this class. It’s easier and less anxiety-provoking in its hard science-ness but we need to concentrate on the important and difficult part of the problem—healing the systemic psychological pathologies that make liberals inarticulate wimps, and make conservatives oppose anything that doesn’t punish, coerce or imprison. We have to keep them from getting in the way of private and public funding of ecological alternatives, low-hanging fruit first, in all the applicable wedges at once, and keep them from sucking up capital and construction resources with far-off capital-intensive low-job-density goose-chases like nuclear. (See how I snuck that in?) We have to find a way to convince them there’s a problem and that it’s not just a liberal plot to take over the world. (See aforementioned psychological healing.) Can we talk about that for a bit?

This actually is a story with a long history. Initial attempts to deal with all environmental issue for the last 30 years have been met with the same: “What you are proposing won’t do the job, so let’s not do it, besides which, we can adapt.” But the history of the thing is that you have to start somewhere. Perhaps the only exception to this was the Clean Air Act. Kyoto, for example was a very flawed treaty, but had it come into force early with US backing, it would have established a framework for more effective actions, and if it had been instituted early on, it would have bought time.

As to Eli’s favorite policy, it is Rabett’s simple plan to save the world. Before I introduce it, let me point out that Nordhaus and Schellenberger are proposing things that explicitly involve “picking winners” “governmental interference” “socialism” “cleaving to a radical leftist political agenda” “spending your money” and a whole lot of other things that, for example, various folk recently have complained about on dotearth. What kind of reception do you think that will get?

So the issue becomes how to take action in the face of the Inhofian imperative that rule much of the US. Now, Eli’s plan to save the world, is more of a policy proposal than a technical one. As for the technical wedges we need now, nuclear for base load, solar (probably not silicon based) for peak load and better transport and zoning policy strike me as good places to START, but the primary problem is to cost the externalities of carbon based fuels. Because all of that will be difficult, it is senseless to waste time and capital on pie in the sky technological development.

Nations wishing to make major progress on decreasing greenhouse gas emissions should introduce emission taxes on all products. These taxes should be levied on imports as well as domestic goods at the point of sale, and should displace other taxes, such as VAT, sales taxes, and payroll (e.g. social security, health care) in such a way that tax revenues are constant, and distributed equitably.

These should be introduced as an Emissions Added Levy (avoiding the bad jokes). EAL would be imposed on sale for emissions added in the preceding step and inherent to the consumption of the product, as would be the case for heating oil and gasoline. Manufacturers would pay the EAL on electricity they bought, and incorporate this and the levy on emissions they created into the price of the product they sell.

Imports from countries that do not have an EAL would have the full EAL imposed at the time of import. The base rate would be generic EALs based on worst previous practices in the countries that do have EALs, which would be reduced on presenting proof that the actual emissions were lower.

All countries with EAL systems would reserve a portion (say 5%) for assisting developing countries with adaptations (why not use acclimations?) and mitigating programs.

By basing the levy on emissions rather than carbon all greenhouse gases stand on a common level, sequestration is strongly encouraged as well as such simple things as capturing methane from oil wells and garbage dumps (that gets built into the cost of disposal). The multipliers would come from CO2 equivalents on a 10 year basis.

And no Kenny darling, Joe’s proposals are a concrete starting point that one can debate about. For example, co-generation has been around for a long time. It is not nearly enough used outside of large industrial plants. Why? Because it requires density and US housing policies favor low density. What I have seen from Nordhaus and Schellenberger to this time is piffle.

“If you have to make a mistake, don’t make the wrong mistake.” – Yogi Berra (paraphrase)

We have exactly one (1) home planet. It will have one CO2 emissions trajectory, the lower the better. Me? I like negative 2-3% per year. Deploying efficiency, renewables, and conservation as quickly as possible is key. We have lots of tools; we can expect slow improvements. Policy matters.

Will the last gentleperson or this thread please turn out the lights?

Is any deviation from Joe’s views a litmus test for your acceptability?

Please tell, what is your favorite policy Prof. Halpern? Or do you just come to ask questions in typical troll fashion?

Joe runs a nice blog with good discussion. Don’t ruin it. Be constructive.

“Ted, it’s not that you don’t have “all of the details.” You don’t have any. Do you support my wedges, or not? It’s a simple question.”